The judgment was delivered three days ago. While I can’t share the full text of the decision, I asked ChatGPT to summarize the key points, which are as follows:
To appeal the decision and argue that the charge should be reduced from habitual gambling to simple gambling, consider these points:
1. Difference Between Habitual and Simple Gambling:
• Habitual Gambling: This charge applies when gambling activities are conducted continuously and repeatedly, often in association with organized gambling.
• Simple Gambling: This charge applies to one-time gambling or gambling activities without habitual involvement.
2. Evidence to Support the Appeal:
• Limited Role: Emphasize that the defendant’s involvement was limited to developing the system or assisting with payment processing, rather than organizing or directly participating in the gambling.
• Primary Perpetrators: Provide evidence showing that the main perpetrators were co-conspirators, and the defendant did not play a leading role.
3. Legal Basis for the Argument:
• Denial of Significant Role: Argue that even if the system provided by the defendant was crucial for the gambling operation, it does not amount to habitual gambling unless the defendant was directly involved in organizing or conducting the gambling.
• Absence of Habitual Involvement: Demonstrate that the defendant’s involvement was temporary and not habitual, making simple gambling the more appropriate charge.
4. Drafting the Appeal:
• Clearly outline specific objections or grounds for dissatisfaction with the decision, and argue for a reduction from habitual gambling to simple gambling.
• Highlight specific evidence, testimony, and legal interpretations to point out errors in the judgment.
It’s advisable to consult with a legal expert (lawyer) to develop an appropriate strategy for the appeal.
I still believe that the charge of “simple gambling” is more appropriate. The logical leap that my involvement somehow led to gambling by sports betting users I never met seems tenuous. I have never engaged in or organized online gambling.
I am grateful for the judge’s decision in the first trial, as it allowed me freedom and the chance to reintegrate into society. However, I still have concerns about the handling of the case as a citizen. Why was my arrest necessary, why was I publicly exposed, why was bail denied, and why was the detention period so long?
I believe the main reason lies in improper police investigation practices.
It’s better to try and fail, than never try at all.
Comments